If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Integrity, truth, honesty of the media - some serious questions

Originally Posted by ChinChin

Racism is a secondary issue to the root cause, which is the media and the undue influence it can bring to bare in the name of obtaining ratings. When news institutes (intentional or otherwise) attempt to become the justice system and strive to influence public opinion rather than reporting. . .we have a much larger pressing issue.
The 4th estate has now become the 5th column.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Wow - cutting right to the chase. Very appropriate connection, nice turn of a phrase.

Too many in the media have become the "enemy within."

The reports and opinions expressed by the media ought to be fair and impartial. They would seem to lack integrity, fairness and honesty - creating false crisis for the sake of ratings and the dollar. That harms us all and brings shame. That is not the way of my countymen.

The would appear to be much distortion and half (or less) truth in what the media has reported. I submit that the agenda might well be to fit this incident into the "guns are bad" niche. At this point, I will admit that is conjecture on my part.

However, read the following links, not for who was at fault, but for the huge amount of media spin, maneuvering, and tampering with facts to portray the events and people to fit a certain mold. Truth would appear to be less important than sensationalism - what might be behind this - I will not attempt to lead, only offer for consideration.Read it all - please! And follow the links here

More media malpratice

NBC investigates editing of 911 tape played on Today show.

NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC: “We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”

Here’s what appears to be the Today show’s version of what Zimmerman said:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here’s what appears to be the actual 911 transcript:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

Unless there’s something I’m missing here, the editing seems extremely improper (“high editorial malpractice,” in the Washington Post blogger’s words). I say this not to opine on the merits of any possible criminal case against Zimmerman; this particular point isn’t about him, but about NBC.[/quote]

NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC: “We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”

Here’s what appears to be the Today show’s version of what Zimmerman said:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here’s what appears to be the actual 911 transcript:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

Unless there’s something I’m missing here, the editing seems extremely improper (“high editorial malpractice,” in the Washington Post blogger’s words). I say this not to opine on the merits of any possible criminal case against Zimmerman; this particular point isn’t about him, but about NBC.

RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

Life Member NRA
Life Member GOA
2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

One thing both these cases have in common--both shooters were tried, convicted and their reputations executed in the Court of Public Opinion by the Mushroom Media, the "Anti's", and other anti-human-rights special interest groups--LONG before the entire story was fully know, and LONG before the complete investigation was accomplished.

And also, in both instances, the Brady Campaign wasted no time at all dancing in the blood of the "victim" and using the situation as an opportunity to demonize law-abiding gun owners, denigrate Concealed Carry laws, and disparage "Stand Your Ground" legislation--again, LONG before the entire truth of the situations were known.

I am reserving judgement until a more complete investigation is done.

But one thing is nearly certain--if Zimmerman is found by an unbiased investigative body to be justified in this shoot, we can almost be assured that the Mushroom Media, the Anti's, and race-baiting opportunists like the Black Panther Party, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Spike Lee will begin pushing for the beginning of a race war in Florida.

This should make for an interesting summer in the Sunshine State.

It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash." --Barry Goldwater, 1964

WOW!! That is so wrong! They make him appear to focus on race hen he was asked.

But that is what the media can do now. It is not about the "truth" anymore but their opinion and spin.

This is blatant evidence that the Mushroom Media is ACTIVELY attempting to parlay this incident into a full-blown race war. This has nothing to do with ratings or publicity--they are doing the bidding of their puppet masters, and attempting to foment racial violence so that their puppet masters can institute Nation-wide Martial Law under NDAA and other provisions...

Wake up, folks.

2012 won't be "the end of the world as we know it" because of the Mayans.

But it may well be, due to the machinations of the International Bankster Cartels...

It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash." --Barry Goldwater, 1964

The white-hispanic BS started when people began to point out that Zimmerman was obviously not white. Since Hispanic make shoots black teen for bring black is no where near as emotive as white man shoots black teen for being black in white neighborhood, they had to find some way of keeping that white tag on it.

It's blatant when you watch videos were they harp on race, but as soon as the truth is pointed out, they become dismissive. "It don't matter I'm going to keep calling him white"

Never let a bit of truth interfere with a good ole fashioned lynching and character assassination. Whatever it takes for better ratings.

While our government has taken to using the term "Hispanic" in a racial, i.e. skin-color, sense, its proper meaning is simply that of any person who comes from a Spanish-speaking culture.

"White Hispanic" is not a contradiction of terms, necessarily or even implicitly.

This is precisely why I caution against playing the media's game of skin color-based analysis. It's impossible to talk about what matters, because neither the shade of Zimmerman's skin nor the language of his grandparents has any bearing on the course of events that night.

Caling Zimmerman a "white hispanic" is, at best, a value-neutral descriptor, and, at worst, an intentional attempt to distract and redirect the issue back onto that of race, and worst of all to do so in a way which allows a claim of plausible deniability.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: don't play that game. Don't satisfy attempts to make this about race. It isn't. Leave that issue to the ignorant and it will die of its own accord. This really is 2012. Most people are over it, as much as the media tries to create drama to sell stories. The media is counting on us as much as anyone to refuse to let the race issue die by continuously "rebutting" their racial claims. Don't do it. Stick to the facts which matter.

This isn't just about the media. The government is at fault too. As I'm sure you know, as a result of this case it's been publicized that in government statistics regarding "hate crimes" hispanic is a victim designation but not a perpetrator designation. Hispanic perpetrators of such crimes (and there should be many given the hispanic/black gang wars as well as the ethnic cleansing of blacks in Los Angeles by hispanic gangs) are lumped in with whites. Given that hispanics commit crimes at far higher rates than whites, this grossly inflates the white "hate crime" stats. This calumny cannot have been an accident. Somebody wants to smear whites.

Do some more reading. That's a two-way street. Specifically, read about the formation of MS-13.

That blacks are retaliating doesn't change the fact that when a hispanic gangbanger kills a black gangbanger and gets a hate crime enhancement for it, that's recorded as "white kills black", just as Zimmerman is excluded from the sainted "hispanic" group and becomes part of the devilish "white" group when he shoots a black man.

--snip--
I've said it before and I'll say it again: don't play that game. Don't satisfy attempts to make this about race. It isn't. Leave that issue to the ignorant and it will die of its own accord. This really is 2012. Most people are over it, as much as the media tries to create drama to sell stories. The media is counting on us as much as anyone to refuse to let the race issue die by continuously "rebutting" their racial claims. Don't do it. Stick to the facts which matter.

Not sure that we can totally afford to ignore the misdirection that emphasizes racial identities. That card has been played hard and often in an attempt to make it the focal point. To turn the other cheek and not respond is tantamount to endorsing the inflammed rantings of the extremists. Old cliche still applies - silence gives consent.

I think that such human qualities of individual identity are simply qualities of my fellow man - they are cosmetic. Any attempt to turn these qualities into a point of contention, especially for nefarious purposes, is deplorable - such cannot be tolerated.

Retaliating? If it really matters who started it, indigenous (as it happens, many/most of them were also black) gangs were specifically targeting immigrants as victims of crimes way back in the 80s, if not earlier. Illegal immigrants make attractive targets because they won't ever go to the police. Some of these immigrants were refugees from the US-government-sponsored guerrilla fighting in places like El Salvador, and some of them had participated in it. With no ability to turn to government to prevent being targeted by our indigenous gangs, but plenty of ability to retaliate extralegally, some of them formed gangs of their own (e.g. MS-13), which then precipitated the so-called "ethnic cleansing" you see today, which is really just one push in the endless back-and-forth which has been going on for decades.

Frankly, I'm still disinclined to consider race as a primarily relevant factor. This perpetual "gang war" didn't start for primarily racial reasons, although it's reported American/black gangs in 80s in California and the like were fairly anti-Hispanic or at least anti-immigrant, and I'm sure there is similar sentiment on the other side. The real driving factors were culture and legal status, as well as of course the biggest driving force of all, money.

Today most gang fighting isn't racially-motivated -- although it can appear as such due to common divisions of gangs on cultural (which then appear ethnic) lines -- but rather motivated primarily by drug profits, and to a lesser degree prostitution and extortion proceeds. Race merely goes along for the ride, but it isn't the defining difference which drives this stuff.

But if you have to make that about race too, at least get the history straight. It's very hard to place the blame on either side, although if you really wanted to it would have to be the black gangs. But then again, that was 30 years ago.

I'd be happy to let your argument regarding statistics stand on its own merit, but I feel disinclined to let unfounded claims of initiatory "ethnic cleansing" go unchallenged.

Not sure that we can totally afford to ignore the misdirection that emphasis racial identities. That card has been played hard and often in an attempt to make it the focal point. To turn the other cheek and not respond is tantamount to endorsing the inflammed rantings of the extremists. Old cliche still applies - silence gives consent.

I think that such human qualities of individual identity are simply qualities of my fellow man - they are cosmetic. Any attempt to turn these qualities into a point of contention, especially for nefarious purposes, is deplorable - such cannot be tolerated.

Yes, but that misdirection is carefully framed -- and the intended audience is manipulated to be receptive to this -- so that any attempt to counter with explicitly race-based counterarguments can be decried as racist. I've spent enough times "on both sides of the fence", or around people of both types, to see this with my very eyes.

And remember, there is little point to convincing those with whom you are already in full agreement. Otherwise you've got nothing more than an echo-chamber, a choir preaching to itself.

I've noticed a particular tendency for that echo-chamber effect to manifest itself on gun forums when the topic of conversation turns to race. Folks start going off on increasingly Limbaughian rants, become more irrational (mind you, I didn't say racist) and, more importantly, socially polarizing. That turns much of the rest of the membership who'd rather not touch it to clearer waters, and POOF, echo chamber.

It is made all the more interesting in that, for instance, on this forum there has long been an established intent to present the material in as broadly-accesible a fashion as possible. (Look at the site's banner, fer cryin' out loud! ) The site's rules are, although largely self-moderated, pretty much tailored-made to encourage presenting open carry in the light of a nonpartisan Civil Right, rather than an issue of mudslinging partisanship. This site seeks broad appeal.

And broad appeal means arguments need to be made with some thought to how the unconvinced might see them. I know I do that every time I make a post, even when I advance some of my more "radical" notions. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I'd like for as many folks as possible to recognize my position as derived from careful, rational thought. Sometimes I am lazy in this regard, but I am always happy for others to say it better than I did, or to nudge me in the right direction.

On this issue of race, it must be remembered that gun forums tend to be probably something like 95% white, 4.5% Asian/Hispanic, and .5% black. I pulled those numbers out of my posterior, but I'd say they're not too far off. With all of us being white, it's easy to start sounding like an echo chamber of Socially Established/Entrenched White Guys. Which is fine, because that's basically what we are. But when we're trying to counter the arguments of those who want to make everything about race, we need to realize that most of the Unconvinced are not Socially Entrenched White Guys, but pretty much everybody else. Therefore, it's sensible to think about the best way to frame the arguments. Mind you, I'm not talking about PC. I'm just talking about knowing your audience.

It's clear to me that it's very difficult to counter race-based arguments explicitly without falling into their trap, and turning off most of the unconvinced. It can be done, but it can't be done by saying, "well, look at all this black crime here!" or, "look at all this 'ethnic cleansing' (omg!) over there"! It can be done by always shifting the focus back to issues of actual effect.

Don't ignore the race card, simply point out how race is not the issue, using facts which race cannot effect. Here, for instance, there is never a need to point out the "reverse" racism of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It isn't necessary to insinuate race war being fomented by the media. Simply point out their inaccuracies and omissions.

I'm going to cite a post of Stanley's, simply to demonstrate that there are those who share much of our perspective, but will see such arguments in an unconvincing light. I'd furthermore like to point out that it seems Stanley has become a least a little bit convinced by the arguments strictly based in fact and law (if not convinced, then understanding of). But it would be easy for him to be turned off by much of the rest of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Stanley

When the ghetto thugs cry race all the other people, and as unfortunate as it is, especially white people need to stay the heck out of it. Nothing you say can or will bring people on your side.

In fact, the MORE you protest the worse it gets and the more the normal black people will choose to err on the side of ghetto thugs and distance themselves from you.

Crying race-baiting or reverse racism is the probably WORST thing you can do. Because frankly, it's disingenuous. This country has a history that justifies crying race on black people's part and you KNOW it.

It will only stop when that cry keeps being shown to have been false. You can't expect a population that actually has been subject to racism for centuries (present day included) to stop assuming it's racist.

You'd be better off letting the stats show it isn't and let them come to the conclusion on their own.

I'm not going to argue whether his perspective is "right" or "wrong", fair or unfair. I'm just pointing out that it is what it is. And it's a very common perspective amongst those who aren't part of the White Guy Echo Chamber.

You think you're not being cowed by proudly making the arguments in the terms you think they ought to be made in, but it's my opinion that you're only preaching to the choir, and at the same time falling victim to an intentionally discrediting trap. That's not fair and it isn't right, but I'll tell you what: that's fine, because race really doesn't matter and we're better of taking the high road and sticking to the pertinent anyway. Let them stay stuck in the excrement of ignorance of decades past. No need to let them drag us down with them.

Remember, the primary purpose of this site is to advocate Open Carry and self defense, and this is a critical time to defend its merits in terms all can appreciate, rather than succumbing to diversionary, partisan rhetoric and arguments bound to be misconstrued by the unconvinced.

(I highly doubt I'm going to convince anybody of anything based on my abysmal failure last time, but that's the best I've got.)